Re: [http-state] Ticket 5: Cookie ordering

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Wed, 20 January 2010 05:14 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@adambarth.com>
X-Original-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F32F3A6876 for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:14:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i39DItrw5lEC for <http-state@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:14:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f204.google.com (mail-pz0-f204.google.com [209.85.222.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B033A6860 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pzk42 with SMTP id 42so3752566pzk.31 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:14:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.55.14 with SMTP id d14mr3122088wfa.132.1263964447272; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:14:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001192044220.10824@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <7789133a1001191410l48530adar28098a03e6de0fb1@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001192044220.10824@egate.xpasc.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:13:47 -0800
Message-ID: <7789133a1001192113u4c185d9dv9a81afbbae826198@mail.gmail.com>
To: http-state <http-state@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [http-state] Ticket 5: Cookie ordering
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state>
List-Post: <mailto:http-state@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:14:17 -0000

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:51 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Adam Barth wrote:
>> Ticket 3 is still open for discussion, but I'd like to get started
>> talking the next ticket:
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpstate/trac/ticket/5
>>
>> == Overview ==
>>
>> Currently the draft defines the order in which cookies should appear
>> in the Cookie header.  In particular, cookies are ordered first by the
>> length of the Path attribute (longest first) and then by creation date
>> (earliest first).  The majority of the most widely used user agents
>> use this ordering. (I can look up exactly which browsers follow the
>> ordering if that's important.)
>>
>> Sending cookies with longer (i.e., more specific) paths first is
>> important for compatibly because some servers host multiple (mutually
>> trusting) web applications at different (possibly overlapping) paths.
>
> I think 'longer' is not a precise term ... likewise, 'more specific' isn't
> precise enough to avoid confusion. I think what would be expected is that
> the path sith the most 'levels' (as noted by '/' characters) is longer in a
> deeper into the hierarachy sense. Same depth, the age rule could apply.
>
> If 'more specific' is already defined similar to what I've outlined,
> you can igore this comment.

In this case, all the cookie paths are prefixes of the Request-URI
path, so these all amount to the same thing.  FWIW, longer is a
precise term: literally the one whose path attribute contains more
characters.

Adam